Lucknow Development Authority v. CIT

98 DTR 183High Court2013#18460 most cited
5

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,339 Indian tax judgments — from 2016 to 2025.

Sections most often in play

Section 10Section 10(20)Section 10(20A)Section 11Section 11(1)(d)Section 12Section 12ASection 12AA

Issues it is cited on

section 10(20a)section 10(20)advancement of general public utilitysection 58purposive interpretationsection 12aa(3)section 60section 13(8)corpus fundsection 13(3)section 13(1)(c)cancellation of registration

Judgments citing Lucknow Development Authority v. CIT

Allahabad Development Authority, Allahabad vs. ACIT (Exemption), Lucknow

In the result all three appeals of the Assessee are partly allowed

ITA 89/ALLD/2020[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Allahabad31 Jan 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Sh. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Sh. Nikhil Choudhary

For Appellant: Sh. Ashish Bansal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Sh. Amalendu Nath Mishra, CIT DR
Section 11Section 12Section 143(3)Section 2(15)Section 260A

…evenue had preferred appeals before the Lucknow Bench of the Allahabad High Court and the Hon’ble High Court was pleased to uphold the claim for registration, vide judgment and order dated 16.09.2013 in the case of Lucknow Development Authority vs. CIT (2013) 98 DTR 183. It was submitted that while doing so, the Hon’ble High Court had taken due note of the plea as had been raised by the Revenue about the amendment in section 2(15) of the Act, particularly the proviso inserted in section 2(15). The ld. AR further submitted that against this judgment there was no appeal before the Hon’ble Supreme Court by filing SL…

Allahabad Development Authority, Allahabad vs. ACIT (Exemption), Lucknow

In the result all three appeals of the Assessee are partly allowed

ITA 88/ALLD/2020[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Allahabad31 Jan 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Sh. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Sh. Nikhil Choudhary

For Appellant: Sh. Ashish Bansal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Sh. Amalendu Nath Mishra, CIT DR
Section 11Section 12Section 143(3)Section 2(15)Section 260A

…evenue had preferred appeals before the Lucknow Bench of the Allahabad High Court and the Hon’ble High Court was pleased to uphold the claim for registration, vide judgment and order dated 16.09.2013 in the case of Lucknow Development Authority vs. CIT (2013) 98 DTR 183. It was submitted that while doing so, the Hon’ble High Court had taken due note of the plea as had been raised by the Revenue about the amendment in section 2(15) of the Act, particularly the proviso inserted in section 2(15). The ld. AR further submitted that against this judgment there was no appeal before the Hon’ble Supreme Court by filing SL…

Allahabad Development Authority, Allahabad vs. ACIT (Exemption), Lucknow

In the result all three appeals of the Assessee are partly allowed

ITA 87/ALLD/2020[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Allahabad31 Jan 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Sh. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Sh. Nikhil Choudhary

For Appellant: Sh. Ashish Bansal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Sh. Amalendu Nath Mishra, CIT DR
Section 11Section 12Section 143(3)Section 2(15)Section 260A

…evenue had preferred appeals before the Lucknow Bench of the Allahabad High Court and the Hon’ble High Court was pleased to uphold the claim for registration, vide judgment and order dated 16.09.2013 in the case of Lucknow Development Authority vs. CIT (2013) 98 DTR 183. It was submitted that while doing so, the Hon’ble High Court had taken due note of the plea as had been raised by the Revenue about the amendment in section 2(15) of the Act, particularly the proviso inserted in section 2(15). The ld. AR further submitted that against this judgment there was no appeal before the Hon’ble Supreme Court by filing SL…

DCIT, Exemption Circle, Ghaziabad vs. Aligarh Development Authority (Ada), Aligarh

The appeal of the department stands dismissed

ITA 4263/DEL/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi19 Mar 2020AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri R.K.Panda & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava

For Appellant: Sh. Deepak Singh, Adv
Section 10Section 11Section 12ASection 2(15)

…tion for such registration was sought for. He has relied on the decision of Apex Court in Commissioner of Income Tax-ll Vs. Krishi Utpadan Mandi Samiti, (2012) 12 SCC 267, and on judgment in Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Lucknow Development Authority, (2014) 98 DTR 183, and contended that respondent had fulfilled the criterion for registration under Section 12-A of the Act. We find it unnecessary to go for much research work 18. and debate issue further for the reason that in respect to a similar authority, namely, "Lucknow Development Authority", which is also constituted under U.P. Act, 1973, a similar questi…

The Commissioner of Income Tax (Central) vs. Sri.G.Sanjay Chowdary

ITTA/593/2015HC Telangana01 Jun 2016

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

Lucknow Development Authority v. CIT (98 DTR 183) — Cited in 5 Judgments | BharatTax